Hi,
A few months ago, I did some benchmarking on file reading operations, not
for the collection classes, I'm affraid. I wrote a couple of lines to see
which method of reading files would perform better than the others(XP 1Gb
mem, P4 3.19Hhz, java 1.4.2). I experimented on TREC collection. The
attached file contains the avg. readings in m-secs. The same thing can be
done for Collections.
I thought this might be useful for the next releases of Lucene.
Murat
> On May 6, 2006, at 3:40 AM, karl wettin wrote:
>> On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 03:28 -0400, Erik Hatcher wrote:
>> On May 6, 2006, at 2:29 AM, karl wettin wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are a couple of Vector:s in the code. Is it really
>>>> necessary to
>>>> use this expensive thread safe artifact from the dark ages?
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any numbers on the performance differences on such a
>>> refactoring? I reckon it wouldn't be that hard to put together a
>>> reasonably representative dataset and test before/after. Who's game?
>>
>> I'm already at it, but in my branch. Can patch up the SVN version with
>> my changes. I'll leave the test to someone else :)
>>
>> The question is what needs and not needs to be synchronized. I take it
>> nothing needs to, but I'm not sure.
>
> Well, we used to have this hot shot committer named Brian Goetz, but
> he's too busy being an expert on synchronization and low-level Java
> details that personally make my head hurt. Maybe he could find it an
> interesting case study to do a little nuts and bolts analysis of the
> Lucene codebase and see what tweaks make sense and just get a test
> suite going to hammer it on all our before/after scenarios.
>
> Whatcha think, Brian?! :)
>
> Erik
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>